Alderney's issues are laid bare by eloquent report

ALDERNEY has been given the message – adapt or die.

And what matters to Alderney matters to Guernsey.

The report released last week by the Constitution Unit of the University College London into Alderney's governance is one that it is easy to ignore.

It does not tell anyone how to resolve the revolving issues of the moment – today it's tidal power, tomorrow it will be transport links – but does eloquently explain why if you do not have the right structures or systems in place, government will just lurch from one issue to another struggling to resolve them while the population becomes increasingly exasperated.

Alderney has a tiny civil service with an extraordinary amount of responsibility vested in those at the top of it.

It has an election system that guarantees instability every two years when half of the States is elected – and just like Guernsey of old, one where leadership is absent.

'And so we have an electoral system which discourages debate on the big questions facing Alderney and incentivises division amongst candidates,' the report states.

'And we have a political executive which is an aggregate of a shifting sequence of alliances and does not have a universally- recognised leader. Add to that a cycle of elections every two years and it would be hard to claim that the political system generates stable government.

'All this at a time when the challenges facing the island are as great as they have been at any time since the war.'

There are some familiar shortcomings.

There is no job description for being a States member, so everyone can approach it in different ways.

There is no induction to help people along the way.

Alderney has no scrutiny function to hold decision-makers and their decisions to account.

And the two members the island sends to sit in Guernsey's States do not know whether they are there to represent their own views having listened to the debate, or represent the island's interests having been given the mandate to do so.

'One way or another, the relationship with Guernsey is going to be critical over the coming years and so it would be prudent to arrive at a settled view of the role of the two representatives and the terms of their tenure,' the report states.

Much work has already been done to better understand the financial flows between the two islands. The shared services are going to come under ever-closer scrutiny in Guernsey as it looks to control spending and ensure efficiency. Guernsey cannot be expected to go through the pain of reform and an acute concentration on spending only to find out that a few miles away money is being wasted because of inefficiency at Alderney's hospital, school, airport or public sector at large. The report does nothing to give anyone much confidence in that regard.

The author warns that it is inconceivable Alderney can be administered satisfactorily by 29 people – and there is more work on its way thanks to that reform of the financial relationship with Guernsey, Brexit and the need to get economic development projects off the ground to help safeguard the island's future.

What this could well mean is Alderney contracting out the delivery of more of its services, something which is playing an increasingly important role here. Becoming an expert commissioner of services is a target for both islands, one where knowledge can be shared.

Transparency is top of the reform agenda, number one in phase one.

This one paragraph should be pinned up on all politicians' walls: 'Politicians get little credit for taking steps to make government more open, but few things are as corrosive of their reputation as measures which are deemed secretive. Openness is simply the cost of doing business in modern government.'

Accept that and you go a long way to ensuring a consistent dialogue with the public so that they understand why decisions are being made and can help shape them for the better. Alderney in some ways already leads on openness – it publishes agendas and minutes of committee meetings online, although that needs to be done much quicker.

In Guernsey, the States Assembly and Constitution Committee aside, day-to-day committee work is hidden – even if a committee wanted to publish agendas or minutes it is likely to be blocked by a fearful centre from doing so. Alderney also has a register of gifts and hospitality available to inspect.

Alderney needs to adapt if its independence is not going to be effectively swallowed by Guernsey.

For all the history, if it begins to fail Guernsey cannot just stand on the sidelines. Equally, if the island ever wants to move to even more independence, be the one voice at the table rather than being represented by others, and be the architect of its own future, it will need strong systems in place to be able to do that.

The report makes it clear that the change should not be by 'experts' or simply left to politicians.

The public needs to be given its voice and given it in a way that is much more tangible than the dead duck consultation exercises that Guernsey seems to love.

'If democratic change is to be successful it has to be rooted in a programme of public engagement. This has to go beyond the conventional process of consultation, drawing citizens into active consideration of the best way forward,' the report states.

'A deliberative assembly might be one technique that could achieve this end. A cross-section of the population would gather for a weekend to work through the proposed reforms and to revise them as they see fit.

'In many jurisdictions, the process would conclude with a popular vote. Experience suggests that if this process of engagement is quick or superficial, then it fails.'

And failure is simply not an option.